Bombay High Court
SANJAY ALIAS PANDHARI DIGAMBAR PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail, finding no basis to conclude false implication but deeming custodial interrogation necessary.
Summary
The applicants, Dattaprabhu Baburao Pawar and Sanjay Alias Pandhari Digambar Pawar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Sections 308(2), 308(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged extortion involving an obscene video of a complainant's wife. The FIR was lodged on 3 August 2026, more than a month after the alleged incident, which the applicants argued indicated a false or fabricated complaint linked to prior financial transactions. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the extortion charge, prior records of the applicant Sanjay, and the delay as evidence of the complaint’s credibility. The Court held that the delay was understandable given the nature of the grievance and found no material to prove false implication, but emphasized the need for custodial interrogation given the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the Court rejected both anticipatory bail applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the applicants' claim of false implication and warrants denial of anticipatory bail
- Whether the nature of the alleged extortion offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita justifies the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 308(2), 308(3), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- custodial interrogation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46471
44-ABA-1712-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
44 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1712 OF 2026
Dattaprabhu Baburao Pawar
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Mr. R. B. Narvade Patil, Advocate for Applicant
Mrs. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondents
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1707 OF 2026
Sanjay Alias Pandhari Digambar Pawar
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Mr. S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for Applicant
Mrs. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondents
CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE :OCTOBER 05, 2026
P. C. :
1. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with C.R. No.
139/2026 registered with Police Station Tamsa, District Nanded for the
offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(3) read with Section 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. First information report lodged on 03.08.2026 indicates that
the present Applicants came to the Informant on 29.06.2026 after making
telephonic call to him. On 30.06.2026, they came to the informant and
shown obscene videos of his wife. They threatened him to pay Rs.1,00,000/-
to them and in case money is paid the video would get deleted. There was a
Page 1 of 3
44-ABA-1712-2026.odt
threat that if money is not paid, the said video would be made viral on
social media.
3. Learned Counsels for Applicants submit that there is inordinate
delay in lodging of the first information report, which creates possibility of
false implication of Applicants. Learned Counsel for Applicant – Sanjay
submits that there are financial transactions between the parties and owing
to the said financial transactions, this report came to be lodged to falsely
involve him in the crime in question. Learned Counsels make submission
that herein this case there is no allegation against the Applicants that they
created/made any obscene video of the wife of the Informant and as such,
having regard to the allegations against them the only requirement of the
investigating agency would be of seizure of mobile phone of the Applicants.
They make statement, on instructions, that Applicants are ready to submit
their mobile phone to the investigating officer.
4. Learned APP opposed grant of any relief to the Applicants by
referring to the investigating papers, which according to her, indicates that
there are offences registered against the Sanjay indicating that he is
involved in the acts of extortion of money. It is her submission by referring
to the statement of witnesses that the informant had immediately disclosed
the said incident to these witnesses and more particularly, because the delay
is caused in lodging of the report, Applicants are not entitled for any relief.
Page 2 of 3
44-ABA-1712-2026.odt
5. Though it is sought to be argued that the present report came to
be lodged owing to the transactions between the parties, there is absolutely
no material on record to indicate so. Having regard to the nature of
allegations, the lapse of time in between occurrence of incident and lodging
of the report is justified. It cannot be expected from the informant who
comes to know about his wife’s obscene video and very next breath he will
rush to the police station to lodge report. In case like in hand, any person
would be reluctant to approach police immediately and would try to find
out solution. The Informant tried the same and hence, lodging of the report
cannot lead to inference that the same is false.
6. Perusal of the investigating papers indicate that there is record
against Applicant – Sanjay indicating that even previously he was involved
in the crime of extortion of money. Since this Court finds no material to hold
that the Applicant are being falsely implicate in this crime and having regard
to the nature of offence, the custodial interrogation of the Applicants would
be necessary. Applicants, therefore, have failed to make out any case for
grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. In view of above, applications stand rejected.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…